On 22/04/15 04:33, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On 22/04/15 04:08, Allan McRae wrote:
On 22/04/15 10:58, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
I feel a stronger case would need to be made for moving vim-minimal to [core]. At the moment we're only trying to figure out a sane fallback editor, mostly for visudo and I guess cronie's crontab. nano seems to fit the bill and requires no additional packages in [core] or base.
(The fact that visudo has 'vi' in its name isn't a valid argument. :P)
No - the fact the every other distribution uses a "vi" for visudo by default is the argument. Or at least I have failed to find one that does...
I'm fairly sure that having a vi installed is in one of the Linux standards.
I know it's anecdotal evidence, but I've always removed vi from my systems and never noticed any problems. Adherence to POSIX can be a compelling argument though.
All right, let's go with vim-minimal.
OK, we can't go with vim-minimal, and since nano was met with some resistance, I've restored the status quo by putting vi back in [core]: This discussion is now concluded, though I'm sure it'll pop up again at some point in the future. At least we now get vim on the installation image, which solves my main annoyance about vi. :) Commit message with justification for the revert: ================= r237918 | foutrelis | 2015-04-22 21:02:32 +0300 (Wed, 22 Apr 2015) | 15 lines Bring back vi (FS#44604) There was objection to switching the /usr/bin/vi editor fallback of programs like visuo to /usr/bin/nano and the idea of not providing /usr/bin/vi at all goes against POSIX. Considering that dbscripts lack support for pushing split packages into more than one repository, vim-minimal cannot be made available in [core] without maintaining two copies of the PKGBUILD, which is something the vim maintainer would rather not do (understandably so). So, welcome back vi; I didn't miss you one bit. (On the bright side, vim-minimal is included on the installation image.) =================